go back and read the whole thing...this is not a review of the album, per se...it's a rumination on where the writer believes paul is, why he's working with these guys (he needs the help with his weakness'...always has) and the hit singles bit is more a stab at paul and his abilites when in fact every contemporary of paul is in the exact same boat...even dylan

hit singles do not great music make...we've all been saying that forever...the music industry, as it exists today...well, as it has always existed...does not cater to older fans/older artists or necessarily better/best music...so, natch, a really good pop single, like 'new', won't get anywhere near the radio play miley or taylor swift will...and, thus, anywhere near the attention from the masses that is necessary to be a hit single...yet does that make it lesser, not as good music ??

and the same goes for every really good to great song he's made over the last 25 years that hasn't charted or been #1...

the whole 'review' is as much a rumination on what the writer feels pauls weakness' (and, where the beatles are concerned, his latent animosities) are, and how he has not only not yet overcome them...but is still, with these producers, trying hard to do so...

at the end of the end it's the start of a journey to a much better place and this wasn't bad so a much better place would have to be special...no need to be sad...

Ive just got back from a locale record store and I have been listening to the NEW album and on first listen its.......GOOD New is not as amazing (YET) as I was thinking and hoping it would be from what Ive been reading the past few weeks. I do need to listen to it (and will) more. I miss the albums of band brotherhood ex. speed of Sound, flowers in the dirt, band on the Run New is very Good but its very sonic sounding to me with all the layers of sound that are put together. For me, mind you only being 3/4 into a first listen I can understand why NEW was chosen as the first Single its a safe starting point for fans that are possibly new to the newer layered music. there are a few other songs on the album that are very good besides the 4 that have been heard like early days its just (for me ) that most of the songs have misic layers that I need to get use to I hope everyone else Loves this album more then me on first listen

I agree with the contributor who said there is probably a bit of a 'hipster' element at work here.

Rolling Stone mag. particularly has fixed views on what is cool and what is not.

Magazines like this reinforce stereotypes that create definitions of atrists that can not be questionedi.e. therefore anything Dylan does is magnificent, but someone as genial as Paulcan at most never get above 4 stars (not that that is a poor score by any means).

I can't help but feel that so many people out there pretend to themeselves what is cool etc, by following what view makes themselves look cool. Frankly I think Paulis perhaps percieved by such sources as too normal to ever be given completely fair treatment in assessing his work.

Pigeon-holing can be a very unfair and lead to injustices.

CheersJeremyP.S Having said all of this it great to see so many wonderful reviews. Perhaps I just like bashing Rolling Stone for it's continuous need to appear 'with-it'.

Jeremy there is a lot of truth in your last post. Especially about Rolling Stone. Who decided long ago that John was the cool beatle, and not Paul.

We seem to take a lot of stock in reviews. Me included. We want reviewers to like what we like...somehow justifying our own tastes. But a bad review doesn't mean that it's a bad album...and it doesn't make the reviewer a bad guy. It just means he didn't care for something you and I did.

That said...keep those reviews pouring in. I love confirmation of my taste.

I want to tell her that I love her a lot, but I got to get a belly full of wine.

Mr. H Atom, you make really good points in your last two posts on this thread.

I couldn't agree more that Paul is, among a certain group of "aren't we cool and hip?" music writers, an easy target to pick on. Dylan, who is barely audible now, sounding similar to my van's engine on a cold February morning, gets six stars out of five for just releasing ANYTHING. It could be him flushing the toilet, and these idiots will salivate over it and praise it to the skies. Bowie, too...Springsteen...Paul Simon...speaking of which, Simon-- whose body of work, for the most part, I LOVE-- hasn't put out a decent album since "Still Crazy After All These Years" (yes, I don't even include the incredibly over-rated "Graceland," which seemed more like going to class in school and being lectured on music in non-Western cultures). Yet, critics fall all over themselves in adoration for every chord and every word of every song. (Oh, and a P.S. here-- McCartney beat Simon to the African rhythms stuff about 12-13 years prior, with BOTR).

Also, why the hell does Paul always get measured with this imaginary "if he were with John" standard? Nobody ever did that (or hardly ever did that) with Lennon. Lennon had many fine moments as a solo artist, and didn't need Paul. Likewise with Paul, who had many MORE fine moments (and many MORE bad moments-- we're basing this on sheer volume of output) as a solo artist, and didn't need John. Hell, if we're to believe most of the books about the Beatles, these two hardly wrote together at all the last couple of years-- and does anyone question the brilliance of the WHITE ALBUM or ABBEY ROAD?

And, yeah, this "hits" crap. It's not McCartney's fault that he's gotten older in an industry that adores and promotes youth. The quality of his music (which I think has gone up the last 15-16 years as he's gotten older, and had more of life to draw from) has little to do with what is "current" on the charts. I happen to think that, with the exception of people like Adele, the late Amy Winehouse, and a couple of others, most of what passes for "hit" radio these days is atrocious. But, that's just my opinion. I'm sure there are talented people out there, but having success these days doesn't necessarily correlate to actually putting out GOOD music.

So, yeah...I'm in agreement with you, Mr. H., and some of the rest of you on this.

in years to come/they may discover/what the air we breathe and the life we lead are all about/but it won't be soon enough for me

Mattal1958 wrote:.Paul Simon...speaking of which, Simon-- whose body of work, for the most part, I LOVE-- hasn't put out a decent album since "Still Crazy After All These Years" (yes, I don't even include the incredibly over-rated "Graceland," which seemed more like going to class in school and being lectured on music in non-Western cultures). Yet, critics fall all over themselves in adoration for every chord and every word of every song. (Oh, and a P.S. here-- McCartney beat Simon to the African rhythms stuff about 12-13 years prior, with BOTR).

Absolute rubbish. So Beautiful Or So What, Paul Simon's latest, belongs in the same 'great late album' bracket as Chaos And Creation, Love And Theft, The Rising, etc. It's pure gold from start to finish.

May sweet memories of friends from the pastAlways comes to you, when you look for them